Author
Topic: Here's a thought... (Read 4522 times)

I think they should do a survivor real time and have the viewers vote out the person...sort of like American Idol. That's what they do in the Italian version of Survivor. My husband and I were in Italy a few months ago and got a kick out of watching it and knowing that the viewing public has the choice of who to vote out.

Sounds kinda like Big Brother with a Survivor twist on it. That format seems to work really well in other countries, letting viewers vote a person out! But if you remember Big Brother 1 in this country and viewers were voting out a member of the cast, it was a HUGE flop! Americans don't want to work that hard! LOL

I personally would like to see it on an episode or something, but not a whole season!

I never watched Big Brother, so I was not aware of how it worked. I do agree that the episode idea would be cool....how about they vote down to the final two and we get to choose the ultimate survivor. That would be kind of cool. I don't know I'm just thinking of some ways to keep it fresh. Survivor is the only reality TV show I watch anymore...all the rest are pushing it for me.

Rupert would have won it all, no doubt. But isn't American Idol kinda like a popularity contest? Big Brother 1 (here in the states) was a popularity contest, and that is why I think the format was majorly revamped!

This would be true and a popularity contest isn't what Survivor is all about. Although, popularity aside, I think Rupert is a Survivor...that's the problem w/him, he's too much of a threat. Of course, that's my opinion because I am a bit biased concerning Rupert. Come on, when he looked over at the other team's raft and took their shoes stating that they're pirates and pirates pillage, plunder and steal...he had me.

Thanks for showing me what was wrong with my theories. Like I said I never watched Big Brother and other than Survivor, the only other reality TV show I got into was American Idol 2

I agree with everyone that public voting would be a bad idea. We only see what the directors want us to see. They probably edit out so much stuff that is pertinent to game play, but not entertaing to watch on TV, that we would end up voting someone off who really deserved to be there while letting someone stay just because we like the way they look or talk or whatever!I do like the idea of maybe 1 immunity challenge being a viewer vote off just to mix it up a bit.Expect the unexpected!!!

Well, as you know, we have so very many CBS execs that look at this message board, (HA HA HA HA) LMAO, maybe their will be a twist like that....That sounds so dumb, I cannot believe I am even posting this. LOL

yea, editing would be a nightmare, with all the cameras rolling, and all the little things to consider. I am sure they watch the whole 39 days before making the first episode, to see what things to highlight (for example, Jerri's bitchiness). i think that Survivor 1 started airing while they were still on the island, I think that one reward that Kelly won was to go to a bar and watch the first episode. Maybe somethin glike Idol, have all the votes done by tribal council, but maybe let America decide teh million dollar winner. Like have the live show as always, and instead of haveing the 3rd person decide who comes, just let America decide who out of the 3 will win. Give them a 1 hour show, let them state their cases, and do the reunion show while people vote via 1-800 number (or 1 900) and then announce the winner at the end of teh show. I think that the anticipation would make for very interesting tv, and it would ensure people watch the reunion show, therefore enabling CBS to gain more advertising dollars for that show. Oh, and if anyone from CBS is reading this, I am currently unemployed, and full of great ideas for Survivor!

I think that bringing back the outcasts was the best idea in many seasons now. I also think the 3 tribe format in all stars should be interesting to watch also. I am holding out for a Survivor DVD box set, of like 30 dvd's of all the shows, with never before seen footage, and commemmorative torch.

I agree with everyone that public voting would be a bad idea. We only see what the directors want us to see. They probably edit out so much stuff that is pertinent to game play, but not entertaing to watch on TV, that we would end up voting someone off who really deserved to be there while letting someone stay just because we like the way they look or talk or whatever!I do like the idea of maybe 1 immunity challenge being a viewer vote off just to mix it up a bit.Expect the unexpected

I agree. It would really difficult for the viewers to see what is really going on and we might vote off the wrong person. I think it would be fun to let the viewing public switch members of the tribe around. So this really screws up any alliances made. (something like what they did in the Amazon when Jenna and Dave picked new members for their tribe).

I don't think that would be a good idea at all. First off, it would be bad for ratings (32 days as opposed to 13 weeks). Second, Survivor is about PLAYING THE GAME. It's not a popularity contest like other shows, it's about backstabbing forming alliances, not being America's Sweetheart. Third, America would vote out the villains right away, and then what would we watch, a bunch of happy people sitting around on an island? Did anyone else watch I'm A Celebrity, Get Me Outta Here? Because, if you did, you would realize that the idea would sink Survivor forever!

Logged

"I stick around until they start talking about gay stuff or Jesus stuff, then i just walk away" -Rudy, on Tagi's group discussions